On the other hand, I note very little coverage of the potential good from drones. Search & Rescue for missing people or Coast Guard, Dropping medical supplies into difficult to reach or war torn places, obviously for entertainment (sports fans following their own drivers or players, or for marketing, or film - not that "marketing" is good).
But the real exciting aspect to all this is for scientific survey of agricultural land, coast line, pollution testing, etc, and the endless humanitarian & positive applications.
If we understand this issue in a less myopic light, we could start understanding how to better utilize their inevitable entry into our lives.

“The former law professor (Obama) has decried “bending the rules” in the fight against terrorism”. Yeah right, just like he decried the NDAA indefinite and secret detention of American citizens law that he was the first to ask for, gladly signed, and is currently defending from legal challenges.

“The Pentagon and the CIA have deployed their general counsels to explain how their drones are always operated legally.” Please explain to me what is legal about an undeclared war (illegal under the constitution) fought far from any battlefield. Especially when those targeted for assassination (including American citizens) have not been convicted of any act of terrorism or ties to terrorist organizations. The president is required to offer zero evidence of guilt for the people he chooses to kill by drone so as far as I’m concerned (and from a legal perspective) all of them are innocent.

“Yet it is disturbingly unclear how many people the attacks have killed (some estimates suggest more than 3,000). The vast majority appear to have been militants, ..” Care to substantiate that claim, especially in light of your own admission that “new looser rules allow so-called “signature” attacks on unnamed fighters; that can easily mean any male of fighting age in an insurgent-held area.”?

The Pentagon should be leading drone strikes with intelligence input from the various American agencies. (messy) Surgical strikes by people who do not understand the conventions of war, or the geopolitical ramifications of these drone strikes, should not be allowed by the US even as the US was attacked by an organisation - not a sovereign state - on 9/11, and an organisation which itself has zero respect for human life, or the Geneva Conventions. This action further reduces the US standing in the world, and heightens terrorism and copycat behaviour risks. It introduces increased geopolitical risks, and by definition that is counter-productive.

Whoever is at the receiving end of the drones, will certainly be against this method of attack. This means that U.S. and its allies, its true allies, should increase 10 or 100 fold this approach, thus avoiding putting their young people in harm's way.

From a purely technical point of view, Afghanistan (and soon Iran) is the ideal training ground for new drone operators. We should remove all NATO troops forthwith and give Karazai a chance to prove himself. Next, we should use the nearest friendly nation as a base from which drones can take off and land. Then we should start a permanent war against Islamic terrorism. This is what the 21st century is all about: Darkness against Light.

Posters here are oh so impressed by drones. But a drone campaign which, by killing the innocent family members of one young male could easily result in this:

1. said male finds his way to the U.S. through any of many available pathways

2. he gets possession of a rental truck full of commonly available nitrates, drenching them in a commonly available combustible fuel, just as was done by one man in America's Oklahoma city bombing

3. he places that truck where it can cause maximum carnage -- outside a crowded stadium for example.

Do you people think your beloved drones can prevent this?

They can't. But they can make it much more likely to occur by killing innocents and giving survivors the moral authority to seek revenge. Revenge is something they can easily get within America's borders as America is a 330 million person composite of soft, unprotected targets.

Drones will give America oh so many kills on their beloved little kill list. Then will come payback time, and the kill numbers will go way up. Will anyone in America connect up the consequences it suffers to the murderous harm it is inflicting on innocents today with its "drones" program? Likely not. But don't doubt the connection -- it is a causal one.

Do you suppose it would be different if the US sent troops into Pakistan (huge numbers would required) and attacked al Qaeda nests with old-fashioned artillery, killing a few "innocent family members" in the process?

If Pakistan could police this area on its own and root out terrorist cells, these attacks would not be necessary (in Pakistan). Until they can and will, I don't see any acceptable alternative.

There's a kill list already, you can find them on wikipedia under the article called "Armed Forces of [Insert Country Name Here]". Being able to do those things that Kurt Volker said is still better than having to send boots on the ground to do it.

Staying true to America's principals will be difficult for barack obama to achieve, since he has no principals of his own to fall back on. He came out of Chicago politics! You believe what he says (as opposed to what he actually DOES) at your own peril

The history of war includes the history of invention. Nothing motivates invention like the immanent threat of being killed. Every invention of a new weapon leads to the invention of countermeasures and defenses. A drone is presently an offensive weapon without a practical defense or countermeasure.

If we wish to control the use of drones, we need to look at how the use of other novel weapons has been controlled. Most of the time, a weapon ceases to be used when it's superseded by something better. I'm not sure what would be better than a drone at this point, although maybe someday some kind of satellite-based ray gun will take its place. In some cases, a weapon ceases to be used when countermeasures become very cheap and successful. Strong doors make battering rams obsolete. In a few cases, well-matched combatants agree to foreswear the use of certain weapons like poison gas, hollow-point bullets, and nuclear bombs.

Presently, the US has a great tactical advantage in drone technology. With such asymmetry, there is no need for the US to agree to any sort of anti-drone treaty. Weapons that are even better than drones not only haven't been invented, but are unnecessary as long as current drones do the job satisfactorily. That leaves defenses and other countermeasures. It surely won't be long before tech-savvy weapons manufacturers in Russia and China offer anti-drone missiles that are at least capable of knocking out the simpler and slower drones. It also won't be long until we see a proliferation of all sorts of "homebrew" drones, since it doesn't take much to weaponize a cheap, readily-available model airplane.

I wouldn't be too surprised to see the future battleground move to aerial robot battles, but the US' unilateral advantage can't last much longer. And, in the end, war is still only won by occupying and holding territory. The idea of winning a war solely via "surgical air strikes" has been seducing military planners and politicians for a long time, but it never works in practice. Wars always end up being about who gets to control which part of the earth, and that requires occupying territory. That in turn always exposes the occupiers to attack, whether by ground forces with small arms or by drones from the air. There always has to be an end game in which even the "winners" of the drone war have to put boots on the ground, at which point the tables can easily be turned against them.

After that, probably will be good for expendable surveillance for more conventional combat (loss of craft acceptable for intelligence needs based on some risk/reward ratio).

And with conventional conflict/tensions, for support for electronic warfare.

The later was one of the first applications of drones actually, with the air war over the Bekaa Valley in 1982. Israel I believe successfully used drones to trick Syrian air denfences into believing they were the main assault package of jet fighters.

The Syrians went into action, and made themselves pretty transparent and vulnerable to anti-radiation bombs from the real Israeli planes.

As a countermeasure, regular jamming of certain airspace may prove one approach, to break any communications links.

Back to uncoventional war, could see unconventional forces creating essentially drone kamikaze. Now range and explosive power may prove limiting factors depending on the resources and technical skills of an organization. Also, dimensions may be limited by needs to reduce radar cross sections (speculating on that last point).

However, a claymore mine is only like 4 pounds, while a Hellfire has a warhead weighing I think about 20 pounds.

There are loopholes for these two for unconventional conflict:
"poison gas, hollow-point bullets"
`
Incapacitating gases seems to have gotten a pass.
`
Tear gas for controlling crowds has remained acceptable.
`
The Russians may have used fantanyl, or a derivative (stuff Michael Jackson employed for personal use), for counterterrorism, in aerosol form, in bringing to conclusion the Moscow theater hostage crisis.
`
There had been rumors in the blogosphere that the Serbs employed BZ gas at Srebenica. Don't know if it is true, but BZ gas existed onces, as an incapacitating hallucinogen (to knock people out and make them passive, the opposite of what was implied in the movie "Jacob's Ladder").
`
I could see variants of BZ gas returning for counterinsurgency in remote locations. Conversely, could also see terrorists and/or insurgents employing it as a disruptive tactic in urban areas (think Aum in Japan, but wigging out tons of Japanese salarimen with no prior experience with drugs). Would get them attention, undermine the authority of the authorities, and make them look a little more humane, or a little less brutal.
`
As for hallow point bullets -thought they were permitted for law enforcement purposes (like sky marshals). Just redefine a conflict as a public safety/law enforcement issue. bam big loophole.

How do drones differ from cruise missiles and ICBM's, or even low-tech artillery or mortars for that matter? They all fulfill the same purpose - "death from afar" with varying degrees of collateral killings.

Compared to other remote-controlled weapons, drones might reduce collateral killings since they have on-board cameras.

On the other hand, like all remote-control killing devices, they are prone to be commandeered through cyber attacks.

Not the perfect weapon in other words. Like or not, the technology is here and will now be a part of future armed conflicts and a tool for terrorists, regardless of whether the US decides to use them or not.

Pretty sure its the same with cruise missiles (unless they could be redirect to some location to safely crash, but not a complete return home)

As for getting commandeered for cyber attacks - that is all pretty new, cutting edge terrain. Seems the Iranians may have pulled it off. There are rumors that Iraqi insurgents somehow hacked their way into getting image feeds (if I understood the news item correctly or remembering correctly - they could see what certain troops were able to see).

Not sure how easily commandering drones will become, or how consistently it could be achieved, same with scale.

In all likelihood Iran didn't succeed, but that's their claim and they're sticking to it. And as for the image feeds, that was the result of people using basic TV tuners by which they intercepted the drone video feeds. Of course, now drone feeds are encrypted and it's virtually impossible to capture their feeds without supercomputers. China or Russia may be able to pull it off, but Taliban insurgents are another story.

Nonetheless, drones are indeed the "least bad" of the various attack options the US military has to use. Mortars, artillery, airstrikes, missiles, etc. all would cause far greater civilian casualties and be far less effective.

So the question is, should the US government sit back and ignore targets they know to be plotting attacks on the US because it's the "proper" thing to do? Or should they assert their right to self-defense? And if they choose the latter, should it be handled conventionally (with many civilian casualties) or with drones?

Hi,
Unmanned aerial vehicles. Death from afar. It started with the kite (birds dropping aside). The American open Pandora's Box with the drones controlled from the comfort of an airbase sent off a voyage of destiny without the 086 processor, the human. However they forgot Aladdin and his “Genie in a Bottle” who can also do it now. Not with the comfort of an air base but with a simple Lab-Top. Be it for terrorists, be it for governments, be it for a neighbour looking on his neighbour.
WE have a new form of environmental pollution.

Whatever the justification, these remain extrajudicial killings. They are not covered by international law and the least they could do would be to provide the documentation which in their eyes justified the executions. Otherwise there is no way we will ever escape the danger that one day we will be the target of a gouvernment that declares us a grave security risk.

In what war has it ever been required to document the use of lethal force against hostile combatants? War is extrajudicial by its nature. When persons come into American custody as prisoners of war, as as criminal defendants, they are entitled to judicial process, and they have received it in both cases.

In past wars the US has had quite thorough documentation of who was killed or captured, where and why. With drones we are left with the ethically dubious claim of the killer agencies that only terrorists are targeted. Besides which, in recent times the US has a strong record of seeking to avoid the scrutiny of judicial process by redefining terms. Ask David Hicks about the US judicial process for "unlawful combatants".

"Thorough documentation"? I don't think so. Any building in Europe that appeared to hold hostile forces was attacked. Read Andy Rooney's memoir for a first-hand account of the European theater in WWII. Later wars, notable in Vietnam, were messier with hostile forces often presenting as civilians.

When remotely piloted aircraft are sent to attack a building, it is because it has been identified as sheltering hostile forces with whom we are at war. That is all that is necessary in a war theater until there is a cessation of hostilities.

There are a few cases in which specific individuals are identified and marked as targets, such as al Awlaki. Such persons are as legitimate as targets as was Adm. Yamamoto.

There are rules and limits to war, as laid down in the Geneva Conventions. War is not extrajudicial, otherwise the International Criminal Court and the Nuremberg trials have no basis. Also Guantanamo is a dubious case. We need a legal framework to cover such conflicts in the interest of all of us.

Yes, there are rules of warfare. These are treaties which al Qaeda is not a party to, and which they have no regard for. I don't believe there is anything in the Geneva Conventions which would prevent the US from attacking a group which has been identified, generally, as al Qaeda operatives. If there is some particular rule, I suggest you cite it and explain how it has been violated. The Conventions are all available online.

True, but they focus treatment of civilian populations and practices amongst legal combatants of states.

There was some reference to partisans at one point, but can't remember the details.

The fact is non-state actors assuming combat roles, often in places where they are not longtime members of a civilian community presents a heck of a lot of legal ambiguity.

Kind of reminds me of pirates. But even then, I think the laws of piracy were probably more well developed back in the days of buccaneers (like the 16th and 17th centuries), however harsh the standards of the times (seemed to allow drum courts and hangings pretty easily).

You mean this? It is not required to wear a uniform.
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
...
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even of this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subor-dinates ;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Drone attacks are the terrorist´s nemesis, they find their hidden training fields and without risking american lives, they can take out dozens of terrorists and destroy their training centers in a second, drone attacks show how the US has evolved and adapted to be capable of inflicting on the terrorists the kind of surprised horror and shock they once presumed as their unique priviledge.
Terrorists have to spend years and millions of dollars planning their terror attacks on US and European soil, but America only needs a few hours to find their centers and destroy them.

That is the dumbest comment ever. Just repeating a completely unsubstantiated accusation, that is pretty much propaganda of wack jobs around the world. One trumped by chronology and facts on the ground.

There is no evidence that the CIA trained Osama bin Ladin. Even Zawahiri, the current alleged leader of Al Qaeda, denies it.

Al Qaeda was founded in the late 1980s, as in 1988 or 1989, after the Soviets had pretty much left Afghanistan, and the US had alot of other priorities (nuclear disarmament, the eastern bloc falling apart, trade with Japan, uh hello).

And considering the Pakistanis largely kept the CIA out of areas where the mujahideen operated, to control the flow of aid, don't think much training was going on there either, aside from introduction of stingers in the second half of the 1980s.

Otherwise, the Taliban was created in the 1990s by the Pakistanis, as an instrument to influence Afghan politics.

And if you mean the Der Spiegel article from 2007, that was bunk. The CIA was sending money and arms to Pakistan. Where things went after that is a whole different ball of wax. However, Arab volunteers were not much in that war, besides fundraisers and playing at jihad. Afghans had enough manpower of their own.

And yes, really, it is a false assertion based on the evidence as it stands now.

What about cases of mistaken identifications? Drones conveniently distance the killer from responsibility. The secrecy surrounding their operations blurs the boundaries and creating conditions likely to foster overuse and cover-ups of accidents. Is it permissible to kill vocal opponents who are not actually terrorists? If it happened would we be told about it and how much freedom would the press have to investigate?

Obviously, it is always wrong to kill anyone. But you forget the context and the cause and effect of the use of drones to attack terrorist training and gathering centers. Ergo, without September 11, there will no drone attacks.

How many days and how many dollars do you think it took America's Timothy McVeigh to plan and execute the Oklahoma City bombing?

Very few, and very few.

Drones which kill innocents in foreign lands are going to get many more innocents killed in America. America should stop abusing this asymmetrical military advantage. Continued use will only ensure horrid consequences within America's borders when those on the receiving ends of drone attacks find a pathway for revenge.

Well, wolfgang21, get used to the fact that US will 'take out' Islamic terrorists wherever they hide. This is what 21st century is all about in terms of war: Light against Darknes, Civilization against Islamic terrorism.

Doing nothing is not an option. Those who think that the usage of drones is illegal/abomination/wrong etc have offered no alternatives which are better than drones.

Some have pointed out how someone who suffers from collateral damage from drones would react. I have to say, the alternatives cause more collateral damage. OBL and most of al-queda didn't suffer any damage due to US but still though 9/11 was a great idea. Also, all of WTC victims were targeted, not collateral damage.

The practical problem is that there are terrorists operating in sovereign non-US territory where the governments and security is weak or non-existent, including certain regions in Pakistan and Yemen. These terrorists have already declared war on US and entire western civilization/non-muslim population. These terrorists recently targeted and shot a 14-year old girl in the head because she was getting an education. I repeat, it was not collateral damage, she was their target.

Some have pointed the strong opposition in Pakistan against drones. However, most of the opposition has been recorded in urban centers such as Karachi and Lahore. Regions where drone attacks have taken place are more ambivalent and a significant % have expressed that they prefer drones over Pakistan army stepping in. Pakistan army itself has in the past used wide-scale bombing through aircrafts to beat insurgencies in Balochistan.

I have to say that the drones are the best practical solution there is to the problems facing US. It is definitely better than putting an army on the ground or sending aircraft for bombings. Past experience suggests that the alternatives cause much more destruction to both lives, communities and property.

Finally, I am not an American but I do like them. I have not supported the Iraq war nor am I interested in seeing a conflict between US and Iran. However, among all countries, the US is probably the only country which has both a serious debate on its actions as well as a willingness to take action.

You don't touch on the psychological toll of living with imminent death from above, all day, every day. Also, the way the targets are selected and the number of civillian casualties make this little more than state-sponsored terrorism.

Isn't it absurd that in retaliation for 3000 dead on 9/11, 100,000 have been killed in Afghanistan, 100,000 in Iraq and countless more in related violence around the globe?

We had ever lived in the situation as you wrote to have imminent death from above, even from the US air-force & military planes, but now still I agree with Dark Lord. For he said the truth that America is the only country to do so among those which almost always talking with big mouths but doing nothing, even only making worse the situation, such as China & Russia. There are both good & bad features of any countries but still I see it's much more positive from the US than any other countries which should also take the possibility for the world.

The Japanese killed about 2,000 to 3,000 Americans with their attack on Pearl Harbor.

Many times more people than that would die over the following 3 to 4 years in teh resulting war. So no, it isn't absurd.

Also, if people are keen on killing alot of other people as part of their political program, like the Taliban, then it isn't surprising that a good number of deaths would ensue. Look at the civil war and repression of the Taliban prior to 2001 and 911, and look at the UNAMA figurs on civilian deaths from 2007 ownwarsd - The Taliban caused the overwhelming majority of them.

There is no evidence to date that 100,000 people have been killed in Afghanistan as a result of the current conflict (from 2001 to now, not the prior civil wars). If you have a link to a credible source, please feel free to share.

Considering Pakistan, Somalia and even Nigeria had longstanding issues well before 911, not sure you can peg that on the US. Zia Al Haq was big on "islamicizing" Pakistan at the end of the 1970s (compensate for the military losing Bangladesh?), Somalia fell apart atthe end of the cold war, and Nigeria had issues dating back to the 1960s (think Biafran war in the south, constant tensions amongst muslim and other communities in the north, etc.).

I actually have read about quite a few taliban mid level leaders who have taken a heavy psychological toll because of drones. A large number of people living in NWFP have indicated their preference for drones over Pakistan military presence. Almost all of the protests against Pakistan against drones are from urban centers protesting loss of sovereignty not fear.

It is not absurd. 3,000 were targeted and killed with prior knowledge that they were non-combatant civilians. In fact, they were targeted as they were non-combatants. They did not just die randomly. The casualties of Iraq and Afghanistan war were not caused by US alone. Quite a large number were caused by Taliban/other forces.

Well, the world is turning out to be safer for USA, UK, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Germany (Most of Europe), Southeast asia, East Asia and Australia. If some parts of Northern Africa and Middle East are more dangerous now, most parts of the rest of the world are safer.

If you are imaging that the Al-queda leadership is motivated by torture by US in the past, when was OBL ever tortured. What about the guy who tried to blow up in times square or the guys who tried to blow up heathrow? OBL was a bloody rich pampered saudi guy from a very successful business family. What happened to all those kids whose parents were killed, mothers and sisters whipped and stoned and daughters whose noses were chopped off by the taliban. What about their psychological torture under the taliban? Shouldn't they be also roaming around extracting a pound of flesh?

Doubtful since the civilian casualties are low by all estimates, while the active supporters of such movements are not exactly attractive to Russia and China. Think central asian republics for the former, Xinjiang for the later.